THE CONTENT OF THIS WEBSITE
HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED BY THE COURT
1. What is the lawsuit about?
In January 2005, a lawsuit styled as a class action was filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court against
The Wackenhut Corporation on behalf of its hourly-waged Security Officers who have worked in California between January 2001 and the present. In July 2006, the
attorneys for various Security Officers also filed a Complaint-in-Intervention on behalf of all hourly-waged Security Officers employed in California by Wackenhut between January 2001 and the present.
This
lawsuit alleges that Wackenhut fails to provide its California Security Officers uninterrupted half-hour lunch breaks during which they are relieved of all duty and free to leave the worksite if they so desire.
- California law provides that Wackenhut’s Security Officers are entitled to an additional hour of pay for each day that they worked more than 5 hours and Wackenhut did not provide them an off-duty half-hour lunch break.
- California law provides that in very limited situations, Security Officers may waive their right to an off-duty lunch break in writing, but Security Officers also have the right to revoke the agreement at any time in writing and then be allowed to take an off-duty lunch break.
- Even Security Officers who recently signed an “On-duty Meal Period Agreement (California)” may be entitled to the additional one hour of pay for violations of the law occurring before the agreement was signed, or, if a court finds the agreement itself is a violation of the law.
This lawsuit also alleges that Wackenhut fails to authorize and permit its California Security Officers to take paid and uninterrupted rest breaks of at least 10 minutes during which the Security Officers are relieved of all duties.
- California law provides that Security Officers are entitled to an additional hour of pay for each day Wackenhut did not permit them to take a paid and uninterrupted rest break of at least ten minutes for every 4 hours that they worked in a workday.
- Wackenhut may not force its Security Officers to waive their right to paid ten-minute rest breaks.
2. What is a Class Action Lawsuit?
In a class action lawsuit, a small number of individual plaintiffs, also known as class representatives, seek to remedy a common grievance or complaint on behalf of a larger group of similarly-situated persons.
In order to proceed as a class action, the plaintiffs must first demonstrate to the court that the case can proceed as a class action by filing a motion for class certification. If the court certifies the case as a class action, notice will be sent to each potential member of the class to inform him/her about the case, their rights, and allow them an opportunity to opt-out of the case if they want to.
On March 3, 2010, the Court entered an Order Granting Class Certification. The Court's Order states, in pertinent part, that:
- A class action is proper as to all causes of action of the Coordinated Complaint, with the exception of the causes of action for penalties under PAGA that are expressly not subject to plaintiffs' motion.
- The class to be certified is defined as: "all non-exempt Security Officers employed by Wackenhut in California during the Class Period of January 7, 2001 to the present."
3. What do the Plaintiffs seek to recover in this case?
This lawsuit seeks to recover premium wages for the meal and rest break violations by Wackenhut, interest, statutory penalties, and attorneys fees on behalf of all hourly-waged Security Officers employed in California by the Wackenhut Corporation at any time between January 7, 2001 and the present.
We strongly feel that the failure to provide Security Officers thirty-minute lunch breaks and the failure to permit them to take paid uninterrupted ten minute breaks, during which they are relieved of all duties (including responding to radio calls), affects not only the health and welfare of the workers themselves, but also concerns the public health and general welfare.
Accordingly, we also intend to put an end to Wackenhut’s alleged serious violations of California law by asking the court to instruct Wackenhut to provide its California Security Officers all of the rights and protections afforded to them under California law.
4. What Security Officers are affected by this lawsuit?
This lawsuit is brought on behalf of all hourly-waged Security Officers employed in California by The Wackenhut Corporation at any time between January 7, 2001 and the present.
The Wackenhut Wage & Hour Cases also may affect hourly-waged Security Officers employed in California by Wackenhut Services, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Wackenhut Corporation, at any time between June 27, 2003 and the present.
5. What can I do to participate?
If you believe that you are a member of the alleged class, and would like to assist its attorneys, then we request that you
Contact Us to help us determine whether you are eligible to participate in the lawsuit. You may also send us an email at
Wackenhut@unioncounsel.net. If you are a member of the class, our communications will remain confidential.
It is illegal for an employer to discharge or in any manner discriminate against an employee because the employee has filed a complaint or claim and/or because the employee testifies on his/her own behalf or on behalf of another to protect rights afforded to employees under the California Labor Code. It also is illegal for an employer to require that an employee refrain from disclosing the amount of his or her wages or other information about the employer’s working conditions, or to retaliate against an employee who does disclose such information.
6. What can I do to protect my rights?
In order for a potential class action such as this one to be successful, the participation of potential class members is very important. If you believe you are a member of the alleged class, we strongly encourage you
Contact Us so that we can discuss your experience as an hourly-waged Security Officer with Wackenhut.
Wackenhut has hired lawyers to defend it in this lawsuit. Wackenhut’s attorneys and/or investigators, even managers, may contact you to get information about your experiences as a Wackenhut Security Officer. The attorneys and/or investigators may also ask current and former Wackenhut Security Officers to sign written/typed statements regarding issues in this lawsuit.
If you choose to speak with Wackenhut’s attorneys and/or investigators, please remember that they DO NOT represent your interests as a potential class member. Instead, these Wackenhut representatives will have only one goal in mind, that is, to defend Wackenhut by defeating this lawsuit and/or reducing the value of your potential claim if the lawsuit is successful. Anything you say to Wackenhut’s representatives could be used against you in court to defeat the lawsuit and/or reduce the value of your claim.
Spread the word about the lawsuit and this website.
7. What if I am a former Wackenhut manager, can I help?
If you are a former Wackenhut manager, your communications with us may not remain confidential.
But the information you have may be very helpful to put an end to Wackenhut’s violations of California law that are alleged in this lawsuit.
It is illegal for an employer to require that an employee refrain from disclosing the amount of his or her wages or other information about the employer’s working conditions, or to retaliate against an employee who does disclose such information.
It is also illegal for an employer to make, adopt, or enforce any rule that prevents an employee from disclosing to a government or law enforcement agency what the employee reasonably believes is a violation of a state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation.
It is also illegal for an employer to retaliate against an employee for disclosing to a government or law enforcement agency what the employee reasonably believes is a violation of a state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation.